if that’s what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, so be it

Thank you. Letting the truth be known does help me sleep at night.

but everyone else knows that the KC-X Source Selection Team was the USAF

No, those of us who paid attention (& did not fall for the media misreporting – not only in what they DID report/how they reported but what they DID NOT report/how they didn’t report) know it was not.

***

if it makes you feel any better, i believe at one time you were right, they did want the 767

but then EADS made its case and showed them how they could use the KC-30 to do the job more effectively and more efficiently and their concerns about size weren’t as big an issue as they feared

in short, they sold them on their product

Then why the charade? Why not just come out & say so?

And why are there no changes in the new draft RFP indicating such. 🙂

“Corner velocity”, or the minimal speed required for a certain aeroconfiguration to pull desired load (g), has been defined as a minimal speed at given altitude multiplied by a square root of required loading (g).

Wrong.

Corner velocity is the velocity at which an aircraft exibits its ‘quickest/best’ (low radius/high rate) turn performance.

We have the fate of the F-22A in mind, when the production run was terminated for cost-reasons at first.

F-22 production was not terminated for cost reasons.

“Looks like they are starting to see the light at the end of the development tunnel for the F-35.”
Your words by the way. Something is coming out of the dark. In that very case the darkness was created by LM, when from the start in 2000 they gave the impression all was under control. In 2009 we are at two years overtime and serval billions surplus spent. We have learned that we were cheated by LM about that. Serious people do claim in the class of or in time-scale of.

No, for the most part, the ‘darkness’ was caused by those demanding low cost at the expense of all else. Resulting in ‘excessive’ use of lower cost but higher weight materials which ultimately resulted in two years of delay & significant cost overruns as the airframe(s) had to be redesigned to reduce weight in order to meet performance requirements. Not that the typical optimistic developement time/cost estimation did not also contribute…

why would Boeing compete if they were at unfair disadvantage?

they wouldn’t

Because the KC-X Source Selection Team lied to Boeing about the ‘fairness’ of the competition. On the techical merits/criteria of the solicitation, Boeing’s was clearly the better offer so the KC-X Source Selection Team had to ‘justyfy/explain’ its selection of the KC-30 based of merits/criteria different from (even in direct contradiction to) those of solicitation.

I thought we were discussing a KC135 replacement not the KC10. By your very own arguments we should limit ourselves to the capabilities of the 135 and judge it’s replacement by that yardstick.

I have never said we should limit ourselves to the capabilities of the 135.

However, in the key capability of fuel offload capacity, the KC-135R is more than enough.

But back the point, 1200 gal/min is doable, not some major engineering challenge for those with experience designing & buiding booms.

Assuming the receiver rates of the newer generation a/c is all very well for parlour talk, but that is all it is, parlour talk.

If you have any informatin as to what the actual reciever rates for the F-22 &/or F-35 I would be much appreciative if you would share such information…

The point being that the VAST majority of the time, the KC-X won’t be utilizing its full fuel transfer rate capability (just like it won’t be utilizing its full fuel transfer capacity).

So you have access to tanker personnel? You have stated to me that you have no personal experience with tanker ops, I assume (rightly or wrongly) that you are a civilian. So how do you gain so much access to these people? Do you work on base? Are related to someone on the tanker fleet? Even then how many have you “interviewed”? How many do you ignore because they don’t say the things you want to hear? In effect you are involved in a game of Chinese whispers. Retelling something you’ve had whispered into your ear. Anybody who has played the game can tell you, the message at the end of the chain is always different to the original.

Have you even been to the US? :rolleyes:

If you think Boeing is the only a/c for the job, fine that’s your choice.

I have never said that Boeing is the only a/c for the job. BUT of the choices we have been left with, the 767-200 IS the best platform for the job.

In the real world however, people with far more knowledge and experience than you will decide what is best for the USAF.

They already did (more than six years ago). But their decision was taken away from them by politicians.

Let’s hope that this time who ever it is ultimately resposible for THE decision, listens to them more than the politicians, lawers & special interest groups.

For me it makes no difference be it A or B, it doesn’t even matter to me which one is in reality the best.

It does to me.

All I do know is, that if I were the man choosing, and seeing that such assets will be in service for decades, I would choose the more modern airframe with the greater capacity. That way there is always room for growth.

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance to the realities of US aerial refueling operations.

His argument boils down to the need for more bombers due to the distance involved in the Pacific. I guess he never heard of WWII. However did the AAC, Navy and Marines make do with all those fighters and so few bombers?

Second, what capability limits of the F-35? The fact that it has more range than just about any other fighter? The fact that it can carry 14 air to air missiles? The fact that it on day one it will carry four air to air missiles (historically more than enough for a sortie) or that it is possible to fit 6 AAM missiles internally if need be? What limitations, as an air to air fighter did he point out?

The best part is that he quotes Carlo Kopp:rolleyes:

Don’t get confused with a consultant preaching the need for more bombers with actual Air Force policy or thinking. It’s just another person’s opinion.

Classic example of someone with an agenda (Cola1973) tanking a source out of context to further said agenda.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE! I becomes abundantly clear that the underlying theme (& thus the POV of most everything contained within) is that the aurthor believes that the USAF needs more bombers & less fighters.